Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) In a pending First Appeal From Order, a Division Bench of the Court on 6 August 2013 passed the following order: "Issue notice pending admission. Admittedly, the property in dispute originally belonged to one Swami Nityanand Ji. The plaintiff-appellants claim that they have succeeded to the property in question after death of Swami Nityanand Ji. It is not disputed that the contesting defendants are also claiming to be disciples of Swami Nityanand Ji. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellants instituted Original Suit No. 110 of 2012 (Swami Ramanand and others Vs. Vicharanand and others) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the property in dispute. It was accompanied with an application for grant of temporary injunction. The court below after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, has dismissed the application. Hence, the present appeal. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in any case, defendant no. 1 who has set up a Will cannot succeed to the property in dispute as it has been found by the trial court that he has committed murder of Swami Nityanand Ji. Reliance has been placed on Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court has found that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the property in dispute. The trial court has also found that, prima facie, there is no material on record to suggest the title of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute. Also there is no finding that the allegation that the contesting defendant has been convicted for murder of Swami Nityanand Ji is incorrect. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants at some length, we are of the prima facie opinion that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have any right to the property in dispute. In view of the fact that both the parties are claiming right over the property in dispute which belonged to one Swami Nityanand Ji, in the absence of any entitlement of the plaintiffs or defendants, the property in dispute shall vest in State. We, therefore, direct the plaintiffs to implead State of U.P. through Collector, Mathura as one of the defendants in the suit. The Collector, Mathura shall take administration of the property in dispute. Administrator General may also examine the case and take care of the property in dispute. It is further provided that the plaintiffs shall not be entitled to withdraw the suit. In case, such an application is filed, State of U.P. will be transposed as plaintiff in the suit. The District Judge is required to withdraw the plaint from the present court and may assign the same to court of competent jurisdiction preferably any additional District Judge. It is further provided that neither of the parties shall alienate or transfer the property in dispute, if any sale deed has been executed or is executed by any defendant, the said sale deed shall be subject to the final order passed by this Court. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in possession over the property in dispute and till further orders their possession may not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the appellants also showed his willingness to deposit damages as a condition precedent for grant of any interim relief. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the plaintiff-appellants shall deposit damages @ 5,000/- per month before the court below. On making the deposit, the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute shall not be disturbed till further orders. The first deposit shall be made on or before 7th September, 2013. The plaintiffs shall continue to deposit the damages of the like amount for the subsequent months by 7th of each succeeding month. In case of default, the stay order granted by this Court shall stand vacated. The final order with regard to disbursement of amount shall be passed later on. List in the month of September, 2013."
(3.) As is evident from a reading of the said order, a dispute appears to have been arisen between the applicants who are plaintiffs in a suit and the defendants therein as to who would have the right to manage and administer the property of one Swami Nityanand Ji.;